ā08-29-2024 12:39 PM
when in my practice lab i implemented 2 server in route reflector. when forming the neighborship with R3 then connection los for other RR client.
what is the reason is this ?
B 1.0.0.0/8 [200/0] via 2.2.2.1, 00:56:24
B 2.0.0.0/8 [200/0] via 1.1.1.2, 01:19:46
B 10.0.0.0/8 [200/0] via 4.4.4.2, 01:37:18
100.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 3 subnets
B 100.1.1.2 [200/0] via 3.3.3.1, 00:56:24
B 100.1.1.4 [200/0] via 4.4.4.2, 01:37:18
sho ip bgp
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
*>i 1.0.0.0 2.2.2.1 0 100 0 i
* i 4.4.4.2 0 100 0 i
* i 2.0.0.0 3.3.3.1 0 100 0 i
*>i 1.1.1.2 0 100 0 i
* i 3.0.0.0 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 i
* i 3.3.3.1 0 100 0 i
*> 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i
* i 4.0.0.0 4.4.4.2 0 100 0 i
*> 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i
* i 10.0.0.0 1.1.1.1 0 100 0 i
*>i 4.4.4.2 0 100 0 i
* i 20.0.0.0 2.2.2.1 0 100 0 i
* i 1.1.1.2 0 100 0 i
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
*> 40.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i
* i 100.1.1.1/32 2.2.2.1 0 100 0 i
* i 1.1.1.2 0 100 0 i
* i 100.1.1.2/32 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 i
*>i 3.3.3.1 0 100 0 i
*> 100.1.1.3/32 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i
* i 100.1.1.4/32 1.1.1.1 0 100 0 i
*>i 4.4.4.2 0 100 0 i
R4#sho ip route loops
->default:ipv4:base 1.0.0.0/8 -> base 2.2.2.1 bgp 01:01:10 N
default:ipv4:base 2.0.0.0/8 -> base 1.1.1.2 bgp 01:01:10
Solved! Go to Solution.
ā08-29-2024 02:05 PM
Hello @BaijuPaul
Based on the cfg you shared, it seems R1-3 are the RR
R2/R4 should peer ONLY to each RR and not each other.
R1/R3 (if applicable should have a direct connection to each other and have an non client IBGP peering
Lastly the RR should share the SAME CLUSTER-id as such this will make both RRs be in the same RR cluster and will negate any unwarranted loops occurring,
@MHM Cisco World wrote:
ip as-path access-list 1 permit ^$ neighbor x.x.x.x filter-list 1 outAdd above in R2' this prevents R2 to be transit AS between two RR
R4 must be RR client for both RR and there must be no ibgp between two RR
Apologies @MHM Cisco World this is not correct, the as-path filter isn't necessary, the RRs SHOULD have a non client ibgp peering with each other and with them being in the same cluster will negate any loops, by the presence of the the cluster -id, it if see this in any route with it own cluster-id , that route will get dropped (just like the as-path check)
ā08-29-2024 12:46 PM - edited ā08-29-2024 03:03 PM
MHM
ā08-29-2024 01:57 PM - edited ā08-29-2024 02:11 PM
Hello @MHM Cisco World ,
all routers are in BGP AS 500 so this is an iBGP context , the use of ip as path filter play a role only on eBGP sessions as far as I know .
For OP @BaijuPaul : you should review your configurations using loopback address as BGP endpoint using neighbor x.x.x.x update-source loop0
You can use OSPF to advertise loopback interfaces between routers in this way you will have stable iBGP sessions even usiing RR servers.
Edit:
your issues are likely caused by the fact you have auto summary enabled we see Class A major networks 1.0.0.0/8 and so on this can lead to problems if packets for a major network are sent to the wrong interface. With no auto-summary networks are advertised with their prefix length with no summarization performed when crossing a major network boundary.
Edit 2:
no issues with auto-summary you are using /8 prefixes on interfaces
ip address 2.2.2.2 255.0.0.0
consider to use more specific subnets on the links and to use cluster ID on the RRS servers if there are two RRS.
Hope to help
Giuseppe
ā08-29-2024 02:11 PM - edited ā08-29-2024 03:06 PM
Only remove ibgp between two RR and dont make each one route-refoect to other and check.
You must see LO advertise by two RR in both side.
MHM
ā08-29-2024 02:05 PM
Hello @BaijuPaul
Based on the cfg you shared, it seems R1-3 are the RR
R2/R4 should peer ONLY to each RR and not each other.
R1/R3 (if applicable should have a direct connection to each other and have an non client IBGP peering
Lastly the RR should share the SAME CLUSTER-id as such this will make both RRs be in the same RR cluster and will negate any unwarranted loops occurring,
@MHM Cisco World wrote:
ip as-path access-list 1 permit ^$ neighbor x.x.x.x filter-list 1 outAdd above in R2' this prevents R2 to be transit AS between two RR
R4 must be RR client for both RR and there must be no ibgp between two RR
Apologies @MHM Cisco World this is not correct, the as-path filter isn't necessary, the RRs SHOULD have a non client ibgp peering with each other and with them being in the same cluster will negate any loops, by the presence of the the cluster -id, it if see this in any route with it own cluster-id , that route will get dropped (just like the as-path check)
ā08-29-2024 02:08 PM
thanks
I add tips about if he using different AS or not' I use smart phone I will use PC to check config he use
Thanks again
MHM
ā08-29-2024 10:12 PM
when i try with different and same cluster id in for both RR- Server then same issue. but once i remove the neighborship with R3 and R4 then working fine.
let me try with loopback interface
ā08-30-2024 06:19 AM - edited ā08-30-2024 06:20 AM
Friend as I mention before only remove ibgp between RR and issue will solve
Did you ever try that?
MHM
ā08-30-2024 06:34 AM
Hello
As stated, R1/R3 (RRs) need to have a non client ibgp peering between each other and the RC just need to have peering to each RR and NOT each other.
ā08-30-2024 06:39 AM
this correct
MHM
ā08-30-2024 07:46 AM
Are issue is solve or not?
If not mention me and I will run lab check what going on
MHM
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide